LAWS(BOM)-2010-2-191

HEMANTI HEMCHANDRA TALEKAR Vs. HEMCHANDRA BHAGWAN TALEKAR

Decided On February 16, 2010
HEMANTI HEMCHANDRA TALEKAR Appellant
V/S
HEMCHANDRA BHAGWAN TALEKAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant-wife has filed this Family Court Appeal against the judgment and order dated 1.4.2005 passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court, Mumbai (hereafter referred to as "the learned Judge") in Petition No.A-1175 of 2001 filed by the respondent herein under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereafter referred to as the said Act.").

(2.) THE appellant-wife got married with the respondent-husband on 13.2.1996 as per Hindu Vedic Rites and both of them started residing at the house at Chembur, Mumbai. The appellant and the respondent have a daughter by name Ms. Mitali. The respondent filed the aforesaid petition No.A-1175 of 2001 in the Family Court at Mumbai on 20.8.2001, alleging therein that the appellant treated the respondent with cruelty. The allegations of cruelty were as follows:

(3.) THE learned Judge of the Family Court, after considering the entire record and issues framed by him came to the conclusion that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent is required to be dissolved by decree of divorce and accordingly, decree was passed under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The prayer for custody of the minor daughter "Mitali' was rejected. Hence the custody of "Mitali" continued with the appellant. The respondent was ordered to pay maintenance of Rs. 2000/- per month to the appellant. Similarly, a sum of Rs.2000/- per month was ordered to be paid towards the maintenance of the minor daughter 'Mitali'. The maintenance was ordered to be paid w.e.f. 1.4.2005. It is to be noted that respondent has not challenged the order by which custody of the minor daughter 'Mitali' was rejected. Similarly, the respondent has not challenged the order of maintenance granted in favour of the appellant and 'Mitali'. The respondent was duly served, however, respondent did not appear before this Court at the stage of final hearing of this appeal.